[OSM-talk] RFC: what are empty nodes and how should we use them?

[Nathan Edgars II]

Renaud MICHEL-2 wrote:
> 
> Hello
> Le dimanche 15 août 2010 à 23:42, Jonas Stein a écrit :
>> Validators claim empty nodes are defective, but are they right?
>> Is painting with empty nodes data that we want to have in the database?
>> Are there any empty nodes that make sense, or is a empty always node
>> nonsense?
> 
> I'd say the validators are right, because a node that is neither part of a 
> way, nor part of a relation, and has no tags is simply useless: we have no 
> idea why it sits there.
> 
> If you put a note as a reminder of something, then you should at least put
> a 
> note tag on it.
> 
Note that JOSM's handling of nodes with only note tags is suboptimal: it
puts them under the same heading (but a different subheading) as ones with
only created_by (the latter should be treated as truly untagged).


Renaud MICHEL-2 wrote:
> 
> Maybe most of those empty nodes are remnants from some time ago, when some 
> editors would delete a way, but not the nodes it contained (I think there 
> used to be such a bug, even before I started contributing to OSM).
> 
There's still such a bug: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2700
-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/RFC-what-are-empty-nodes-and-how-should-we-use-them-tp5426109p5426331.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.